What Type of Theist or Atheist are You?

[Thermal]

Would it be less polarizing to return to using Agnostic as the middle ground of beliefs, leaving Theist and Atheist as the extremes of belief?

 

[ynot]

One wonders how you, personally, would react to irrefutable, empirical, non-anecdotal evidence of the existence of the Tooth Fairy.

Sarcasm - One wonders how you, personally, would react to irrefutable, empirical, non-anecdotal evidence of the existence of a god.

In other words, what a silly thing to wonder. If irrefutable, empirical, non-anecdotal evidence of the existence of the Tooth Fairy was presented I would have to accept it. Same for a god or FSM.

 

[ynot]

Would it be less polarizing to return to using Agnostic as the middle ground of beliefs, leaving Theist and Atheist as the extremes of belief?

I would strongly argue at length that agnostic is not a middle ground. But that would be a derail of this thread and if you do it you're breaking forum rules.

 

[ynot]

Too late to edit it now but my definition of "atheist" in the OP should more correctly read . . .

"Atheism = No belief in a god or gods, and no disbelief either"

To categorise your atheism simply as "No belief in a god or gods" doesn't define whether there is any disbelief.

 

[bruto]

Not too crazy about the definitions, but I put down "type B" as a weak atheist, in the sense that if by some unimaginable circumstance a god were shown to exist I would not deny it out of hand. I can't see how it could happen and don't expect it to, but I don't hold myself to be so wise that I can imagine everything.

 

[ynot]

Not too crazy about the definitions, but I put down "type B" as a weak atheist, in the sense that if by some unimaginable circumstance a god were shown to exist I would not deny it out of hand. I can't see how it could happen and don't expect it to, but I don't hold myself to be so wise that I can imagine everything.

Thanks for your vote. I invite you (or anyone) to post a set of definitions that would please everyone.

Why did you vote according an "unimaginable" future when the poll asks "What Type of Theist or Atheist are you?” not “What Type of Theist or Atheist might you be in the future?”. If a god were ever shown to exist then knowledge changes and everyone's vote would change as well.

 

[Loss Leader]

I'd hate to say that I "know" anything for certain. I believe there is no God. What I do know, however, is that I have never seen a self-consistent working definition of "God," I've never seen any evidence of the existence of anything one might call a god, and I've never seen anyone imagine a proper falsifiable test for the same.

 

[ynot]

I'd hate to say that I "know" anything for certain. I believe there is no God. What I do know, however, is that I have never seen a self-consistent working definition of "God," I've never seen any evidence of the existence of anything one might call a god, and I've never seen anyone imagine a proper falsifiable test for the same.

Knowledge is only as certain as current best evidence. If a god shows up then that new evidence would provide new and improved knowledge that would replace the old. "I know" doesn't mean (or have to mean) forever.

 

[Pup]

Not too crazy about the definitions, but I put down "type B" as a weak atheist, in the sense that if by some unimaginable circumstance a god were shown to exist I would not deny it out of hand. I can't see how it could happen and don't expect it to, but I don't hold myself to be so wise that I can imagine everything.

I asked once long ago here, if strong atheism had to rise to the level of faith. In other words, if I said all the evidence showed that every god was constructed by man due to man's innate desire to anthropomorphize things, and then somehow incontrovertable evidence of a god showed up, would I need to continue insisting the evidence didn't exist, in a faithlike way?

The concensus was no, one didn't need to give up their common sense, and there was an assumption that if such a game-changing thing happened, I'd still be able to accept the evidence, even while claiming I knew there was no god now and didn't expect it to change.

If A requires faithlike adherence to the knowledge there is no god, then I'd have to go with B also. Just like if NASA admitted the moon landing was a hoax, showed us the soundstage, and new independly conducted landings proved there was no flag or footsteps, and the whole scientific community agreed, I wouldn't have to keep insisting on pure faith that Neil Armstrong really landed, in order to say today that I knew he landed.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I'm the kind of atheist that considers the whole premise of even bothering to have an argument about God, completely moot and pointless, given that a) There are infinite kinds of ways to define "God" according to each individual, and b) At the end of the day, none of the practical, daily important issues (such as the economy, education, global warming, etc etc) are affected in the least by such pointless discussion

 

[bruto]

Thanks for your vote. I invite you (or anyone) to post a set of definitions that would please everyone.

Why did you vote according an "unimaginable" future when the poll asks "What Type of Theist or Atheist are you?” not “What Type of Theist or Atheist might you be in the future?”. If a god were ever shown to exist then knowledge changes and everyone's vote would change as well.

Of course a future event would, one hopes, change everyone's vote. In the mean time, I prefer to consider the possibility of being wrong as a part of how I consider myself now.

 

[Thermal]

I would strongly argue at length that agnostic is not a middle ground. But that would be a derail of this thread and if you do it you're breaking forum rules.

Checked the definition of agnostic, includes 'a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in god'. As this similar to your middle-of-the-road definition, could you clarify how suggesting a synonym is derailing a thread or breaking forum rules?

 

[Thor 2]

Well I think the wording was fine ynot.

The problem is atheists are a most difficult bunch - they don't like to be labeled.

Didn't somebody say once that getting atheists to move together was like herding cats?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I'm an atheist by inflation: I believe in every God, Demigod or supernatural entity equally.

 

[Thermal]

Thanks for your vote. I invite you (or anyone) to post a set of definitions that would please everyone.

How's about:

1. Atheist: No belief at all, lacking any demonstrable proof of any divine being
2. Soft Atheist: No active belief, but open to possibility
3. Agnostic: No faith or disbelief in god
4. Soft Theist: Sure seems nice...heaven sounds swell...
5. Theist: Was beaten mercilessly when I questioned why the Almighty didn't let my team win the baseball game

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I'd hate to say that I "know" anything for certain.

But you know that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5, right?

God is defined as supernatural. Supernatural is defined as outside of nature, ie. not existing. Therefore God does not exist by definition.

 

[Thermal]

But you know that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5, right?

God is defined as supernatural. Supernatural is defined as outside of nature, ie. not existing. Therefore God does not exist by definition.

Would it be reasonable to define supernatural along the lines of 'unobserved in nature' as opposed to not existing at all? Even subatomic particles are sometimes theorized without being observed

 

[Kid Eager]

Not sure if anybody has said this previously, but my option isn't listed: I don't believe that there is a god, rather than believing a god doesn't actually exist. Is that different aside from semantics? I think so.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Another option is an "apathetic atheist", or "apathist". I don't know, and what's more I don't care.

 

[MikeG]

I'll not get involved in a poll in which the options are entirely around belief. "I believe......" plays no part in my atheism.